Starter Camera & Lens Recommendations

Please recommend a starter camera and lens for me. I would like to

keep it under $2,000. to start with. Events are tennis, softball,

football. I thought I was getting decent photos with an Olympus

5060wide zoom until I shot a night football game. Thank you.

The lens would be the most important thing so I'd suggest a Nikon D70 or Canon 350D body with a 70-200 F2.8 zoom. I'm not sure of prices in the US but the Sigma zoom is very highly rated.

If you want 'good' night football images __ you need a 135mm f2 or or a 180mm f2.8 or a 300mm f2.8 lens. Keep away from a zoom lens at night with flash. That said, look at

 

 

 

www.keh.com

 

 

 

and see what you can find within your budget. A Nikon F100 body and a AF 180mm f2.8D lens would work better at night than your Olympus, for example.

Thanks for your prompt responses. I'll review every suggestion.

Being a Web Developer, I have been using PC Magazine Digital Camera Review as my reference. http://www.pcmag.com/products/0,,qn=Digital+Cameras+Digital+SLRs,00.asp

 

But I want to know what you guys in the field recommend. Thanks for the professional advice.

If you can go with a film SLR for now your budget will stretch much farther. Later, after you've earned some money from that investment, you can add a dSLR.

 

You can pick up something like a Nikon F100 or F5 or Canon EOS-3 or EOS-1v for a lot less money that their equivalents in dSLRs. The F5 and EOS-1v would give you framerates and autofocus capabilities equal to a much more expensive Nikon D2Hs, D2X or Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II.

 

You can buy a really good lens with the rest of your money. For example, an IS or VR telephoto zoom would be a good choice.

 

Personally, I believe some form of image stabilization is so useful for action oriented photography there's no reason to do without it if it's at all possible to squeeze it into your budget. At the very least there are compact digital cameras (with non-interchangeable lenses) with this technology built in.

 

Also, at least one Konica-Minolta dSLR has their own Anti-Shake technology built into the body, so you get the benefit of the technology with any compatible lens.

 

If your timing is really good (mine isn't any more) you may not need blazing framerates, so something like a D2H or D2Hs may be superfluous. And with a little extra care you may not notice much difference between the excellent AF capabilities of the more expensive SLRs and dSLRs and the less expensive versions. But another factor the better AF mechanisms offer is the ability to attain focus with less hunting in low light.

Used D1X or D2H and 80-200 afd or 70-200hsm sigma. If budget permits grab a apo 1.4 to match.

Canon 300D Rebel, Canon EF 200mm f2.8 L, and Canon EF 300mm f4 L. Good luck.

The D1X and D2H look great for fast frames per sec. But the price is pretty high and they look like they hit the market in 2001 & 2003. Is older technology for a digital camera an issue? I read a lot about Canon's Rebel EOS XT. Only 3 frames per second but more mega px and newer technology.

 

What do you guys think about purchasing on EBay?

 

I hadn't considered a film SLR. The time to print and porting into PhotoShop would be an issue. I'm good at Photoshop being a web developer.

I also like the IS feature on the Canon EF200mm lens, if I can afford it. I may have to go into debt.

Thank you for all your recommendations. I'm still researching every one of them.

Cecil, Your wallets never to fat and lens isn't to big when it comes to sports, especially football and shooting at night under the lights is a whole book into itself. I have bought most of my equiptment from the guys here on PN, the E-*ay is a shot in the dark, if it sounds to good to be true it is and it's probably a rip off, or it's some guy with friends who bids up the price so in the end you could have gotten a camera with a past from this site or KEH or B&h. I'm partial to Nikon so if your going Digital a D-70, D-100 and up, I use and old D-1 and it keeps on ticking. I would recomend film, you could get a good deal on a F100, and a 70-200, 80-200 or a 300 prime for under a $1000 and have lots for film to get started. Here's a shot with a F100 with a 300 on film. Good luck and remember no matter where you are you'll probably be at the wrong spot.

Jim

How about mixing a Nikon D50 with a Canon 70~200mm f/2.8L IS USM Auto-Sensing lens? The D50 is very close to the D70, but priced around $800. and the Canon 200mm f/2.8L with IS looks like a good lens for sports. Any problem mixing one brand with the other?

 

You talked me out of Ebay. Thanks.

And you're right about film being better than digital, but the print delay and viewing/adjusting my shots would detrimental (I think).

Different lens mounts! You can't mix different brands of cameras or lenses.

Thanks, What do you think about combining the Nikon D50 ($800+-) with the 70-200/2.8G IFED AFS VR ($1,500+-)? Then all I need is a flash and memory.

Would this be a good combination for sports? Softball/baseball, tennis, and night football?

I believe general opinion is to stay with Nikon instead of Canon.

Thanks for bearing with me.

I would look at the Sigma 70-200 F2.8 lens, it is very highly rated and costs about half the price of the equivalent Nikon or Canon. As for the body I'm not sure the D50's autofocus speed is fast enough for sports (I could be wrong!) but the D70 is probably a better bet if you decide to go Nikon. I'd have a look at Canon's 10D as well as it's a very capable camera. Good luck.

The D70 with the 70-200mm f/2.8G VR is a great combination. I use it for soccer. The autofocus somtimes has issues shooting higher level play, but generally it's fast enough. Indoors I use the D70 with an 85mm f/1.4 for basektball, which works ok. I'd rather have the 200mm f/2 but it's outside my budget.

 

Under lights is tough, and a flash is usually not an option for amature sports. And the distances on a football field often make it ineffective. Whatever camera you choose, purchase a monopod for the football games. It often allows you to get by with slower shutter speeds.

 

And remember, cameras come and go, but a lens can last a lifetime. So purchase the best glass you can.

Thank you to everyone that has contributed to the line. I have read and re-read your comments many times. I've been working on 4 hours sleep and my brain is starting to hurt because I've jammed so much information into it this week. I wake up thinking specifications. I agree 100% on the lens lasting a lifetime comment. I'm going to try the Nikon 70s with the 70-200mm/2.8G IFED AFS VR. Add a SB-800 and 1gb CFCard. Around $3,000. ouch! I never could find a comparison between the Sigma and Nikon lens. But looking at the amount of lens inside, I would think the Nikon would have a better image quality. I'll grab a monopad later. (mono-)Tripod will have to do for now. Thanks again. I'll be reading your comments in other lines to improve my skills.

Cecil, Nikon D70s (if you can find one, a new D70 remained in stock will be even cheaper with same performance via free firmware upgrade on line) will do the job and 70-200 2.8 VR will be terrific. This combo will get a lot of use. For night time prep football however, I really doubt that this combo will work too well since adding an electronic flash (SB-800DX in your case) will add an unnatural look to your images. If possible, try to shoot day games for now (if any.) If you must go out and shoot a Friday night game right away, I'd say 135mm f2, or an 85mm f1.4 without flash would be my choice (unless you can get a hold of a 200mm f2.) While shopping, I don't think you'll be needing VR/IS tech and just shoot hand-held since, if you're capturing action, you'll need 1/250 or higher shutter speed anyway and at that speed, you might as well hand-hold the rig for better handling and faster response time especially when you switch framing orientation.

 

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/presentation?presentation_id=294182">Here are some of my images.</a>

 

Good luck.